text:
What pilot certificates were needed to fly the Space Shuttle?
Were there specific FAA (or other relevant regulatory body) pilot licensing or certifications required to fly the Space Shuttle? Are they specific to the Space Shuttle, or would it have fallen under an existing pilot license scheme?

They make you take big jump, if your cojones end up in a heliocentric orbit that means you are good enough :)
Jokes aside, beside having IFR rating, passed various physical tests, have quite a few hours at the helm of a jet all space shuttle pilots had a very specific training with a specially modified aircraft, able to simulate the peculiar characteristics of the unique glider that a shuttle in the reentry phase is

FAA considers space shuttle either a military aircraft or spacecraft and hence its rules don't apply on space shuttle.
However, requirements to be a pilot for a space shuttle are:

... at least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time on jet aircraft

It means that you need type rating to operate a heavy jet aircraft (not light jet). Weight of an empty space shuttle is 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)1. In addition, you need the additional requirements mentioned by NASA (link above), which include education and health standards to meet.

Operating empty weight of Airbus A380 is 610,000 lbs.

A military pilot could have that PIC time without holding an ATPL. I think the real question here is whether the FAA had any jurisdiction over the Space Shuttle program at all.

@Pondlife a clarification: a military pilot can have a PPL only and 1000 hours as PIC in a jet, CPL is not needed?

Wouldn't that be "the requirements were", seeing that the Space Shuttle is no longer in operation, and hasn't been for years?

You have 1000 hours of PIC jet time as a Private or Commercial pilot. The ATP part makes no sense

At least in the US, military licensing is completely separate from civilian licensing. You can use military experience to get a civilian license (e.g. 61.73, 61.153) but the FAA doesn't regulate military flight training. Having said that, it seems to be common for military pilots to hold civilian ratings, perhaps because they're fairly easy to get (e.g. ATP with 750hrs instead of 1500hrs for a civilian). But I know very little about the military side of things.

@MichaelKjörling You haven't heard? In order to talk about the Space Shuttle, you need to live in a state of denial and pretend that it's still flying. You can't be a space nut if you don't.

"Jet" and "heavy" are not the same thing.  There are plenty of jets that are not heavy.

What's more, according to the linked page, the jet time is in lieu of professional experience obtained after degree completion.  It's not strictly required.

OTOH the Time In Type requirement was quite low.

@MichaelKjörling the shuttle may not be flying, but the regulations and requirements would still be in place.  Between Branston and Musk and NASA there will be something else along eventually, and those regs will already be in place to annoy, irritate and confound future astropilots.

@Farhan A military pilot doesn't need an FAA license at all. Indeed, they could have thousands of hours flying jets around with some of that time at Mach 2 and they'd still have to go through the normal FAA requirements to get a PPL to even fly a Piper or a Cessna. I suspect that they'd be signed off to solo rather quickly, though...

@E.P. Gee, no, I hadn't; that's awesome! Maybe the same requirements allow me to believe we're still able to go to the Moon, too? (Just to be perfectly clear, since tone sometimes doesn't come across well in text: That's a joke. But still...)

@Criggie Fair enough point.

@reirab, FWIW most military pilots can obtain a commercial certificate on the basis of a written competency test and logbook review.

@Farhan covers the NASA requirements but legally, According to the FAA FAR's

§460.5   Crew qualifications and training.
....
(b) Each member of a flight crew must demonstrate an ability to
  withstand the stresses of space flight, which may include high
  acceleration or deceleration, microgravity, and vibration, in
  sufficient condition to safely carry out his or her duties so that the
  vehicle will not harm the public.
(c) A pilot and a remote operator must—
(1) Possess and carry an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument
  rating.

But, is NASA an "operator licensed or permitted under this chapter?" The military is not, as far as I know, but I'm not sure about NASA's human spaceflight operations.

I believe these rules were issued in 2006 after Congress passed laws directing the FAA to develop regulations for commercial spaceflight. The regulation you cite is specifically in a chapter for "Commercial Space Transportation." None of the regulations in that chapter apply to "Space activities carried out by the United States Government on behalf of the United States Government". In other words, this regulation never applied to the Space Shuttle.

The effective minimum rating would be a pilot with an instrument rating as this would be required to operate the shuttle training aircraft, which they would do at least 1,000 times and often from Class A airspace at 37,000 feet.

This might or might not be correct; a source would help. Public use operations (i.e. government operations, very loosely speaking) aren't regulated by the FAA, so it isn't obvious that any Shuttle pilot held an FAA pilot certificate or instrument rating.

91.135 provides no such exception for Class A airspace. In all reasonable likelihood, I'd fall over shocked if any pilot of the shuttle lacked an instrument rating given the comparative higher workload of exempting the aircraft. Operating under instrument flight rules requires an IFR rating.


text:
How does the shape of the blades on N1 fan on a turbofan generate thrust?
A propeller generates lift, which results in prop-wash for thrust(same as helicopters), but when you look at the N1 fan it looks much different than propeller blades. Do turbofan blades generate lift like propeller blades to generate thrust? And why are the blades curved on a turbofan?

It's just an aerofoil, like a wing, or a rotor blade or a propellor blade.  Relative air flow speed (by rotating the fan) and angle of attack = force.  It's only called "lift" when it's a wing or a rotor blade.

Fan blades, propeller blades, rotor blades and wings are all aerofoils and work in much the same way. Variations in shape are just optimisations for each particular use case.
With the number of times you have asked this question (at least three here and two on http://physics.stackexchange.com ) I thought you would have grasped that by now.

I am a slow learner. I process information very slowly. The shape of the blades look different than a propeller blade, thays why I asked it and also why I ask a lot of questions on one subject.

Even with all the questions I ask and get answers too I still get confused and thats why all the questions.

Think that lift is just the result of pushing air in some direction: downwards for wings or rotors, rearwards for propellers, or in any suitable direction for compressor stages. Anything that moves air in any proportion or direction creates a force in reaction and tends to be moved in the opposite direction, and it moves unless the force is not sufficient.

Doing that is often not so easy, because in addition of creating this force, let's name it lift, the process also creates unwanted effects, collectively named drag. Drag has numerous negative aspects: it increases fuel consumption and often reduces lift created.
Anybody can create a device which generates lift, but the role of the aerospace engineer is to increase lift while decreasing drag, and to take into account the technical feasibility, and the limits of materials.
The design will also try to minimize the fuel quantity required to produce the lift.
During this optimization the shape of the device is carefully selected and adjusted, based on result of previously performed tests, and new ones. This leads to different shapes according to conditions of lift creation: desired amount of lift, energy available for this creation, permitted volume and weight, speed of surrounding air, temperature, etc. This is a reason why a compressor blade is not shaped like a helicopter rotor blade, or B737 vertical stabilizer.
Curiosity and insistence are good drivers, but they need to be guided by some methodology, else you get exhausted soon. What you may lack is a general overview of aerodynamics. Asking isolated questions is valid, but not the most efficient way.
To understand the all aspects you need to dig into the engineer manuals or at least into good vulgarization books. There are many online for free.
By the way lift, whatever the name is used (e.g. thrust for an engine and propulsive power for a propeller), is really any force created by moving air, so when you open a door you create unwanted lift and vortex without knowing.

How does opening a door generate lift?

Back to my first sentence: Lift is just the result of pushing air. This is the way to see it in a simple way. If you want the full monty by Nasa then here we go: Lift occurs when a moving flow of gas is turned by a solid object. The flow is turned in one direction, and the lift is generated in the opposite direction, according to Newton's Third Law of action and reaction.

There's mutiple types of lift. An aircraft wing doesn't push air backwards, but rather uses it to lift the weight of the aircraft upwards.

Where does this vortex form on a door?

Are you ever in the chatrooms?

I didn't write backwards but downwards. This creates a force upwards (more or less) which opposes gravity and maintain the plane at its altitude. Vortices around a door are created like that. See full study of door opening.

@mins aah, Chalmers. I graduated in '06.. I'm getting old. ;)

Does moving my hand through the air generate lift and a vortex?

@Ethan - Does your hand move air? The amount of lift is very small since your hand makes a poor airfoil, but there will be plenty of vortices  because your hand makes a poor airfoil. Next time you see a campfire (or someone puts a cigarette in an ashtray) move your hand through the smoke and watch.

@FreeMan what about a shower. The water vapor is visible in a shower.

@Ethan, in showe everything described happens as well, however, you will not be able to see it because vapor is everywhere - there is no vapor-free areas in air in the shower, so you wouldn't be able to distinguish where the vortexes are. Just do the cigarette trick.

@Alexus What about steam coming off of something hot. I don't know anybody who smokes anymore.

@Ethan it will work, but hard to see. Buy a box of matches. Quickly wet the head of one match with your saliva. Strike it and light it up. Then blow onto it to put off the flame. You got yourself a smoking match that will produce more smoke then "un-salivized" one.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How do the propeller blades accelerate air resulting in thrust to push an aircraft forward?
I do know that the blades on a propeller generate lift to provide a force pushing back on the air based on newton's law the 2nd. What I am having trouble understanding is how the blades generate thrust by cutting through the air? I know that helicopter hover because they push air downwards, but on a propeller the angle of the blades is much different than of a helicopters blades. Also I don't understand a zero lift configuration. I am having a lot of trouble understanding how helicopters push air downwards, as you can see in this picture

The airfoil doesn't look at all like it can push air downwards. I hope you guys can understand my confusion with this subject. Also I have looked this up on google and was provided answers that were way too confusing for me to understand, so can you give me an answer that is easy to understand. Thanks.

Note that for a helicopter, the collective control changes the pitch of the rotor blades (kind of like a variable pitch prop on a fixed wing aircraft, but more complicated). Your image shows the blade pitch in a neutral position.

As @GregHewgill mentioned, the blades angle of attack is variable, what confuses you is that the image shows them in a neutral configuration that would not generate lift. The working angle is similar to what you can see on a fixed wing aircraft. Peter's answer and links clarify this.

Propeller blades or rotor blades are like wings: They move through the air, and when they have the right angle of attack, they bend the air back- (in case of a propeller) or downwards (in case of the helicopter). On a wing, this causes downwash, on a propeller this causes prop blast. Both are really the same. Air gets a kick in a direction orthogonal to the movement of the airfoil, be it on a wing, a propeller or a rotor.
To make sure the angle of attack is right, a helicopter rotor uses a mechanism called collective pitch control to vary the angle of attack on all blades simultaneously. In addition, the rotor airfoil is carefully trimmed to have no chordwise shift in the center of pressure over angle of attack. Note that the rotor blade in the picture attached to your question has a small vane at the trailing edge: This is bent slightly upwards to trim the whole rotor such that it will not be twisted by aerodynamic loads.
Please do yourself a favor and follow all the links to other answers here on Aviation SE (it's only three links), and read them carefully. This should help to cure your confusion.

Just to hammer home the point: In older helicopters such as the one pictured in the question, the angle of attack (i.e. twist) of the rotor blade is controlled by a long lever (like a typical car brake lever) in the pilot's left hand. The pilot lifts the lever to increase the angle of attack of the rotor blade. When the pilot has landed, he lets go of the collective lever, it's normal position is down - in this position the rotor blades can spin without producing lift. This is what you want when waiting on the ground with the engine running.

@RedGrittyBrick ... and during auto-rotation.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why do planes generally curve north and not south?
I know that the shortest distance on a sphere is a curve and not a straight line, so that's why planes curve when they fly. But why is that planes curve north and not south? For example, when if I hop on a plane from New York City to London, it'll go northward and fly over Greenland. Could the plane have traveled in the same time but using a route that curves south?

If you want the planes to "curve south" (at least how it appears on your map), try flying in the southern hemisphere.

Why do I need to be in the southern hemisphere?

The shortest distance between two points on a sphere is a straight line. At least, it is when you draw it on a globe. However, when you project that onto a flat map, the shortest path appears to be a curved path. It's not though, it's still straight. The map projection is just messing up your perception of what "straight" and "curved" are. Note that the map projection also distorts all other features, such as coastlines, in the same way.

This does answer my question! Thank you

@Nate, get a globe, a piece of string, and a flat map.  Pick an origin/destination pair, and use the string to find the shortest “great circle” route between them on the globe.  Note some geographic features that the route passes through, and plot them on the flat map.  Now do it in the Southern Hemisphere...

If you want it to "curve south" just look at it from above the North Pole. ALL flight paths on the earth are curved, cause the earth is a sphere! Which way that curve appears depends on which side of the curve you are observing it from.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What does a pilot do when there is crosswind?
In an aircraft, headwind slows it down, and tailwind speeds it up. But it does not steer the flight off course.
But when there is extreme crosswind, how does the pilot handle the situation? And what does crosswind do to the aircraft structure?

This article provides a lot of basic information on crosswind landings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_landing

"crosswinds make pilots crabby"

Some airports have multiple runways at right angles to each other, and will direct landings onto the one that has a more favorable angle to the wind at any given time.

The pilot compensates, depending on the phase of flight the compensation will be different.
On takeoff rudder and aileron corrections are used to keep the airframe in line with the runway as it executes its ground roll. This mitigates side loads on the gear and ensures the airplane does not swerve on takeoff and right after lifting off.
En route you generally fly a given ground track, either towards a VOR (or other such beacon) and/or a GPS path. When flying VFR you might even fly to known landmarks and locations. If there is a crosswind at altitude then you need to point your plane such that the resulting vector keeps you on course. The extents of this are nicely illustrated with the FAA's ground reference maneuvers. Keep in mind that the lower the cross wind component and the higher the aircraft's airspeed the shallower the angle too correct will be.
Most modern autopilots (and even plenty of older ones) are capable of tracking beacons and GPS courses and will fly the correction for you.
On approach and landing the corrections are a bit different. The approach to the runway is flown much like an en-route correction, pointing the plane such that the resultant course is inline with the runway. In order to land the aircraft it must be inline with the runway so rudder is used at the end to yaw the airframe in line with the runway for touchdown. Unless you're flying a B52...
Here is a good presentation on the matter. More good info here.
En route, the crosswind does not do anything to the structure, you are simply flying through the air and subject to its movement. On landing you are limited by the rudder and aileron authority to actually correct for crosswinds. The biggest dangers from crosswinds on landing are excessive side loading on the landing gear, tail or wingtip strikes, and simply running off the runway.

En route, flying IFR, you can also ask for a different altitude if the time/fuel savings from having tailwind offset the time/fuel expenditure of the altitude changes.

Maybe to elaborate on the "En route the crosswind does not do anything to the structure, [..]" part: the aircraft is pointed a bit 'sideways' so the combination of headwind and crosswind (as seen from an observed on the ground) is just headwind for the airplane (the airplane itself does not perceive any crosswind, just headwind).

Could perhaps add pod strikes or prop strikes to the list of risks, for planes with wing-mounted engines.

But when there is extreme crosswind, how does the pilot handle the situation?

extreme crosswind means you don't go flying or divert to a safer destination. What is extreme to C152 is nothing to A320, so degree of how extreme the wind is is relative.
to cope with crosswind, pilot introduces WCA (wind correction angle) and flies heading that is different from ground track by the value of WCA. You fly into the wind, and in VMC your next fix that you are flying to will not be right ahead of you but slightly (or not very slightly) aside.
landings are done either slipping or crabbing, or variation of both.

And what does crosswind do to the aircraft structure?

nothing. Up there, there is no crosswind, there is no wind at all in that sense that airplane moves in the air mass which moves relative to ground, and this movement of air mass relative to ground is called wind.
Very strong wings, however, are more often than not associated with windshear, microbursts, strong turbulence etc. Windshear is particularly dangerous if happens at low height.
on touchdown, extreme crosswinds can cause accidents, because airplane has control surface movement limitations. If full control inputs are insufficient to compensate for crosswind, airplane can be blown off the runway. Microbursts and windshears can lead to rapid loss of altitude and very hard landings if no immediate action is taken. One must be complete idiot to go flying in such weather conditions.

It might be added that if you are flying a tail-wheel airplane, a tail wind can make the final segment of the rollout uncontrollable. When the airspeed of the airplane is zero the ruder and alerions have no effect. Between the time when the airspeed hits zero and the groundspeed hits zero, you are at the mercy of the wind and inertia.

Is differential wheel braking not usable to control things during this timeframe?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Where is the term *pro rata* defined as it is used in 61.113(c)?

You've just received your private pilot certificate and your friends want to share the operating expenses of a flight with you.  There's a mother, a father, and their 6-month old baby. Do you split the cost of the flight among three people or four?

Obviously, the answer depends on the definition of pro rata, but I can't find the definition of that term anywhere in the FARs. This term is used here:

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

Where is the term pro rata defined as it is used in 61.113(c)?

Generally, if a term doesn't have a definition in the regulation, the ordinary or dictionary meaning of the term is used. So I would imagine in this context, a private pilot flying $n$ passengers cannot pay less than $1/n$ of the operating costs.

Part of me thinks I know the answer, another part of me wants to forward the question to the FAA's lawyers to make sure I'm not talking out my tailcone...

There are legal dictionaries if you want to look it up there (Black's Law comes to mind.)  But honestly, if you'd like an interpretation of a legal statute, you really need to contact a lawyer.

@Hugh - I would agree with you except for the part about the infant, which messes things up.  It's obviously a passenger, but can it share in the operating costs of the flight?

Another guess: At the point that an infant would pay for a airline ticket, they can contribute to the cost of sharing a private flight. That's usually aged 2.

@SteveV. while the regs state that the pilot may not pay less than 1/n of the operating costs, they do not state that any other passenger has a minimum they must pay. Thus in your example, while it makes no sense for an infant to pay anything, the regs don't seem to preclude the pilot from paying 1/4 and the remaining 3/4 coming from the other passengers in whatever ratios they wish, such as the father paying 3/4 and the mother and infant paying nothing.

@mah - I agree with you completely.  The question, then, is what's N?  Consider that the difference between N=3 and N=4 could be hundreds of dollars.

Don't you really want to be asking "What is the definition of 'passenger'?" i.e. is a 6-month-old on the flight a passenger?  If so, N=4 and the pro-rata is 1/4.  You don't think pro-rata is based on weight or ages, do you?

pro rata in law generally means according to a calculation or apportionment formula - in the context of the FARs that formula is generally assumed to be $\left(\frac{1}{nOccupants}\right)$ as Hugh noted.
I actually went on a dive through FAA counsel opinions on how they deal with the pro rata bit and found nothing applicable to this situation, so what follows is an interpretation crafted out of my own slightly deranged mind, but it seems sensible to me.

Interestingly while digging around I found nothing in the FARs or interpretations that would seem to preclude a more complex formula for pro rata share than "divide by the number of people in the plane", but neither is there anything I can find to support doing so, and I imagine it would be much harder to justify to your local FSDO if questions came up.
  For the sake of simplicity (and our collective sanity) let's stick with "simple division" as the formula.

The FARs specify that the pilot may not pay less than their pro rata share of operating expenses associated with the flight.  So, if we have 4 occupants of the aircraft (Mom, Dad, Baby, and Pilot) and they go for a hundred-dollar hamburger the simple division method says pilot cannot pay less than one-fourth of the operating expenses associated with the flight.  If we say the expenses work out to be \$100 (for the sake of easy math) the pilot has to pay at least \$25.
The FAA doesn't much care where the rest of the money comes from because it's implicit in the regulations that the pilot isn't keeping it (the money would be going into the hands of the FBO for fuel, oil, ramp fees, etc.) -- Mom & Dad could pay $37.50 each (covering themselves plus the baby) or split it up between themselves in any other way they wish and this is still acceptable under the regulations as long as the pilot has paid their pro rata share of the expenses.

The pilot can certainly pay more than the simple-divison pro rata share of expenses (and generally that's the most equitable option - figure out who's paying, divide by that number, and make sure the pilot is in the "paying" group to stay on the right side of the regulations).
In your example you would split the cost up among the three adults (each paying $33.33, and the pilot generally kicking in the extra penny).
The same logic in both of these arguments would apply if we weren't talking about a baby, but rather a third friend that you all decided to treat to a trip.


text:
Is skydiving not NOTAMed in the US?
Recently there was a mishap at South Lakeland Airport in Mulberry, Florida where a Cessna 170 collided with a skydiver. Luckily all involved suffered only minor injuries. As far as I know, skydiving in Germany must be NOTAMed, is this not the case in the US?
The incident was caught on a series of stills:

14 CFR 105 covers parachute operations in the USA.
There is not a requirement for a NOTAM, but since this happened at an uncontrolled airport the nearest ATC facility must be notified at least 1 hour in advance but not more than 24 hours in advance and, they must have approval from airport management.
Then for the actual jump, ATC must be notified at least 5 minutes prior to jump via radio from the aircraft.

§105.23   Parachute operations over or onto airports.
No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command
  of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from
  that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless—
(a) For airports with an operating control tower:
(1) Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the
  airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.
(2) Approval has been obtained from the control tower to conduct
  parachute operations over or onto that airport.
(3) Two-way radio communications are maintained between the pilot of
  the aircraft involved in the parachute operation and the control tower
  of the airport over or onto which the parachute operation is being
  conducted.
(b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval
  has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct
  parachute operations over or on that airport.
(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed
  and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least
  2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a
  hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.
§105.25   Parachute operations in designated airspace.
(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in
  command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted
  from that aircraft—
(1) Over or within a restricted area or prohibited area unless the
  controlling agency of the area concerned has authorized that parachute
  operation;
(2) Within or into a Class A, B, C, D airspace area without, or in
  violation of the requirements of, an air traffic control authorization
  issued under this section;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section,
  within or into Class E or G airspace area unless the air traffic
  control facility having jurisdiction over the airspace at the first
  intended exit altitude is notified of the parachute operation no
  earlier than 24 hours before or no later than 1 hour before the
  parachute operation begins.
(b) Each request for a parachute operation authorization or
  notification required under this section must be submitted to the air
  traffic control facility having jurisdiction over the airspace at the
  first intended exit altitude and must include the information
  prescribed by §105.15(a) of this part.
(c) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, air traffic
  control facilities may accept a written notification from an
  organization that conducts parachute operations and lists the
  scheduled series of parachute operations to be conducted over a stated
  period of time not longer than 12 calendar months. The notification
  must contain the information prescribed by §105.15(a) of this part,
  identify the responsible persons associated with that parachute
  operation, and be submitted at least 15 days, but not more than 30
  days, before the parachute operation begins. The FAA may revoke the
  acceptance of the notification for any failure of the organization
  conducting the parachute operations to comply with its requirements.
(d) Paragraph (a)(3) of this section does not apply to a parachute
  operation conducted by a member of an Armed Force within a restricted
  area that extends upward from the surface when that area is under the
  control of an Armed Force.

Even more information is available in AC 105-2E.


text:
What do the yellow lashes/wings on the B737 PFD indicate?
When I was looking at a YouTube clip of a B737 doing a landing, I couldn't help but notice something on the PFD:
What do these yellow lashes/wings indicate on the artificial horizon?

Image Source (Added green arrows for question clarity)
They were on for the entire approach and remained on even after touchdown.

They display the maximum pitch that can be exercised with the current configuration of the aircraft.
Using data which is measured in modern airliners, a maximum pitch angle can be calculated and displayed to the pilot on the primary display. It is described fully on this page (h/t @mins)

With airplane aerodynamic specific data and the angle of attack measurement, we can have an effective pitch limit indicator PLI. A pitch limit indicator informs the user about the current difference between $max(\alpha)$ and the current $\alpha$. In many commercial airplane the pitch limit indicator is integrated within the glass cockpit, as shown in Figure 3; with this setup the pilot has a real-time indication of how much can pull on the column.

Does this indicate the limit of pitch, or actually the limit of AoA?

What are those markings to be compared to? In the video they seem to be "fixed to the screen" while the blue/brown horizon indicater moves behind them? I do not suppose the idea is to tell the pilot "don't pitch more than 12 degrees below the horizon", but then what is it that should be kept from crossing the yellow marks?

@Steve If I had to guess, it's the pitch that will result in max alpha.  I'm not sure how wing loading is taken into account...  I would guess that if you pull up and increase the G loading, then the max pitch angle should decrease even though the max alpha is the same.  Increase G loading enough, and you should be able to bring the max pitch angle down to meet the current pitch angle.  Again, just guessing.


text:
Was this Gulfstream way below the glideslope?
I saw this YouTube video about a Gulfstream jet that came into landing on Princess Juliana International airport and the landing does not seem to be by the book at all. It seems like the landing gear is only a few centimeters from hitting the fence and a meter from hitting the people on the beach. It looks like to me that he is way below the glideslope, but since I'm not that familiar with Princess Juliana I really can't confirm anything.
Is there any more information available about this incident? Was it actually a normal landing, or was it caused by wind shear or pilot error? How often does this occur?
UPDATE:
I found this comment in the comment section from someone who claim to be a long time pilot:

Juliana is Class D so 91.129 and 703 applies:

FAR 91.129 (E) "An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by
  a visual approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at
  or above the glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a
  safe landing."
See also FAR 91.703 (a)(1) "Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall: when over the
  high seas, comply with annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention
  on International Civil Aviation and with 91.117(c), 91.127,
  91.129, and 91.131;

They were way below the visual glide slope indicators i.e PAPIs (for Juliana), and (from flying this approach myself) it's not necessary for a safe landing. Besides ...it's just not very good practice.
Sincerely, Long time pilot. (:

I have to say that by my logic thinking: I agree with this guy. I am not a pilot myself, but here is why I agree with him:
Low approach method:
If the plane hits the fence: It could cause the gear to break of (And maybe hit someone) and when the plane touches down on the runway with broken landing gear at flying speed: It could cause a rapture in the fuel tanks, igniting it. And you are essentially a tumbling fireball down the runway.
High approach method:
If you fly higher to avoid the fence: The chances of hitting it and cause a tumbling fireball are greatly lowered. However: You may overrun the runway. But this would be preferred (In my book atleast). Since the plane has touched down on the runway and slowed down: You decrease the chances of fuel ignition when you overrun. And if the fuel ignites at the end: You will most likely end up with the fish. And the fire may not be put out completely, but greatly suppressed. And since the speed also is lowered: The chances of survival is greatly improved.
This is just my personal look on this. And some may or may not agree with me. But since the YouTube comment is there: I though there might be something to this.

Just search for "Low flying aircraft over beach" and you will see many similar videos, including larger airplanes like 747's.  This beach is VERY close to the end of the runway, and a "normal" threshold crossing height is only 50 feet above the runway.  This is low, and usually it is just the angle which makes it look even lower.

There's no incident here. St Martin has a very short runway which spans a small stretch of land between 2 beaches, it's an airport where jets need to be on the numbers. It's famous among plane watchers and there are hundreds of videos of aircraft coming in low enough it seems as if you could reach up and touch the landing gear.
So if there was a glideslope this aircraft was certainly below it, however it's not an instrument landing so glideslope had nothing to do with it.

Well considering that the 747 lands there: I thought a little Gulfstream didn't need to go that low?

Considering that an overrun means rolling into the water if I was landing any fast aircraft there I'd put it on the numbers.

@AlexanderJohansen For what it's worth and in my opinion, if conditions were present that indicate possible windshear, the best course of action would be to carry appropriate extra airspeed (1/2 the expected gust value?) down to the flare, but still plant it on the numbers.

TNCM Rwy 10-28 is 7546’ x 150’ paved asphalt.  That’s quite a long runway, given the airport elevation is very close to mean sea level.  Large jets can comfortably take off and land there, even on hot summer days.

I think the correct word the questioner might have intended is glidepath, not glideslope.

Some of those Caribbean airports are really nuts. They squeeze them onto tiny little islands.
A 3-degree glide slope will be 10 feet high at 200 feet from the numbers, or just over the fence.

There's a few very important details to keep in mind here, although I've never flown this approach and I don't have an approach chart. Keeping these details in line it may be closer than desirable but not closer than allowed.
The first thing to remember is that even jets like this are so big they appear closer than they are, especially in a 2D image. There are many stories of people who swore a plane was just a 100 ft away when the plane is actually 1000 ft away. A GIV is twice as long as an American school bus, so if a person appears close enough to reach up and grab the landing gear but also appears much taller than the landing gear, the person is not actually beneath the plane. I've included a screenshot of the video here with some dimensions marked.  It's hard to tell, but my guess is that the landing gear goes 8-15 ft over the fence, not just a 1-3 feet.

This close to the runway, airplane height is considered in individual feet not hundreds of feet. The fence shown is only 500 ft from the runway threshold and 1,750 ft from the aiming point (by my own measurements in Google maps).  A 3 degree glideslope with level terrain puts you only 91 ft above the runway elevation at 1750 ft.  If you're off and land closer, like 900 ft past the fence at the start of the rubber tire markings on the runway, that drops to 47.1 ft.  I'm no expert on obstacle clearance but 40:1 obstacle clearance would take over a dozen feet off that 91 ft clearance, and 250 ft ROC doesn't seem to apply here. Even if you were to aim for a point 200 ft past the threshold, you'd only add about 10 ft/3 m to your clearance over this fence.
So overall the plane is very big and the distances above terrain in a typical approach are small, so although it's much closer than what's expected it also looks way worse than it is.

The threshold is ~500 ft from the fence, but the touch-down zone is another 1,000 ft further, which adds another 50 ft altitude over the fence.

@Jan .  Thanks for pointing that out, I've update to reflect both a landing at the aiming point and a landing point short of the aiming point but still past the threshold.

Excellent point! If we forget about perspective, we get a lady walking on the right side of the road who is a head taller than the fence. She's taller than the car she's next to, but not the fence - not by a long shot. Without considering perspective, her hair would have been blowing in the wind!

I don't think the sharpness of focus is correct for the airplane to be above the shadow.  I think it is closer to the camera.  But I may be wrong.  What was the time of day and how high above the horizon was the sun at the time, and in what direction?

St. Marteen Juliana Intl (TNCM) is under Dutch control, so FARs do not apply; you’ll have to find pertinent ICAO regulations to determine legality.  As to the approach itself: Most likely the crew was showing off for the beach goers (macho hazardous attitude); it was almost certainly below the visual glideslope generated by the PAPI lights on RWY 9.  They were lucky they didn’t clip the fence with the main gear with that damn fool stunt.

I agree with Carlo. No legit reason to fly this low. Just none. When talking about pilots, pro or not, you have to understand there are douchebags among them too. Pilots are not a superhuman group.


text:
Will having a history of depression prevent me from flying?
The AOPA website lists four medications as acceptable treatments for depression. I was treated with one of them, but it ended up making things far worse, to the point where I had issues with suicidal ideation. I've since stopped taking it and, while I'm still somewhat depressed, no longer have those thoughts, and don't have any issues getting along with daily life.
My depression is more along the melancholic lines, so I basically just don't find most things enjoyable. Being in the air is one of the few things that helps, so obviously I'm worried about not being able to do so. I don't have any of the symptoms that would seem to have an impact on actually flying, but I know having a history is a problem, so I've been trying to figure out how much this will affect things.
Not sure if aircraft type matters for medical requirements, but I was hoping to either fly helicopters commercially, or in the very likely case that I can't find a helo school, I'd probably end up crop dusting.

Hi! Welcome to Aviation.SE. Since you mention AOPA, can we assume that you are interested of the situation in the United States? You can edit the text and add an 'FAA' tag to help narrow down the question :)

@TylerDurden Yes, but that's making the assumption that anyone with depression is automatically a murderous psychopath. If that were the case, you'd see that kind of news daily. That guy wasn't just depressed, he was mental.

As for the tags, @MikeFoxtrot thanks for the tip, and, yeah, in the U.S. Haven't used SE much before, so I'm still trying to figure things out.

If you aren't already an AOPA member then you should definitely join. They offer medical advice and there are a lot of detailed discussions in their member forums (the medical one is moderated by an AME) about depression, meds etc. But ultimately you'll have to see an AME to get advice on your personal situation.

For the record, I don't own an airline, but if I did, I would have very very (very) serious concerns about hiring someone with a history of suicidal thoughts.

@Richard: I don't think OP is taking about flying a commercial airliner, but rather a private/GA aircraft? There's a big difference between having suicidal thoughts while driving/flying a private aircraft/car, and having suicidal thoughts when driving an airliner/bus full of passengers.

@LieRyan - He mentioned flying a helicopter commercially. That, assuming we're sticking with your analogy,  would put him in at least the same category as a bus driver.

@Richard or a truck driver. There's plenty of non-passenger commercial flying.

This is one of those questions where you really need to talk to an AME, preferably one who has significant experience working through these sorts of issues.  In order to get the Class II medical that you'll need to fly commercially, you'll end up needing to work through the process anyway, so you're probably better off starting with the expert, rather than with a message board like this one.
The only case where you'd save any money by starting here is if someone here were to accurately tell you that there is no need to go to an AME as there is no way anything could possibly work.  I doubt you're going to get that sort of advice, because (a) we don't have any AME's that post here on av.se, as far as anybody has ever self-identified, at least, and (b) this stuff is sufficiently complicated that you don't want to trust a layman's info or opinions, even one who "knew somebody who had a similar situation."
That said, I'd suspect that the chances are pretty good that you may well be able to get a medical certificate, so I would encourage you to pursue that path.  Let a good AME take a look at the specifics of what your history looks like, and listen to his/her advice about what would need to happen (maybe very little, maybe quite a bit) in order to satisfy the FAA.
This thread deals with an entirely different medical condition, but the answers, and the logic behind them, apply here as well.
Be honest with the flight surgeon, and don't let random posters here talk you out of giving yourself every opportunity to pursue your dream of flying commercially.
Best of luck to you!

I'll probably do that, then. Just wanted to post here before hand in case anybody knew. But, yeah, talking to someone who does it for a living's the only way to be sure.

I have a history of depression and hold a 3rd class medical certificate.  In my case the depression is managed by medication so the certificate is issued under what is called a Special Issuance (SI).  Therefore I have personal experience with the extra "hoops" involved that others have mentioned.
You must start with a consultation with a HIMS (Human Intervention Motivation Study) AME.  These doctors have additional training and familiarity with the depression and anti-depressant SI protocol introduced in 2010.
The AME who moderates the AOPA medical issues forum is an excellent starting point (he helped write the protocol that the FAA adopted) and you can contact him directly for advice.  Alternatively you can find a HIMS AME in your local area by consulting the FAA's official list.
Good luck!

I looked up HIMS and this seems to be a program for alcolholism only. Do they do other conditions too?

This is what the medical certification standards for third class say.
Second class's standards text in the "mental" section is verbatim to third class standards.

§ 67.307 Mental.
Mental standards for a third-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the
  following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly
  manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, “psychosis” refers to a
  mental disorder in which— (i) The individual has manifested delusions,
  hallucinations, grossly bizarreor disorganized behavior, or other
  commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or (ii) The individual
  may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations,
  grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted
  symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
...[stuff about drug and alcohol abuse truncated]...
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition
  that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
  appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
  involved, finds— (1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the
  duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied
  for or held; or (2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum
  duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to
  make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those
  privileges.

If a medical is denied the FAA can choose to make exceptions.

§67.315   Discretionary issuance.
A person who does not meet the provisions of §§67.303 through 67.313
  may apply for the discretionary issuance of a certificate under
  §67.401.

Here is a link to §67.401
My personal opinion on the matter is that you will probably be able to get a medical and you may have a couple of extra hoops to jump through.  I'd think the fact that you've proven to be stable and aren't on medication will help you.

With depression you can be issued a medical if it’s treated with one of the four SSRIs. It’s the HIMS program and you’d have to see a HIMS AME. Situational depression and recurrent major depression are different. Likely a special issuance - but I can’t say for sure.

On this sort of topic some references would be very useful given the consequences, and 'but I can't say for sure' is not very helpful.

https://www.faa.gov/ame_guide/app_process/exam_tech/item47/amd/antidepressants
I hope this is helpful. There is a process that they use and hopefully it all works out for You!!

@GremlinWranger In some questions, it's certainly possible to have a certain answer, and a "can't say for sure" answer to those questions isn't very useful. Here, however, a layman who isn't familiar with all the details of an individual's case CAN NOT say "for sure" what that person's results will be, but it's still useful info to describe general principles that the AMEs refer to.  So much turns on the facts of a particular case, that it's entirely valid to say, go see the doctor, your chances seem reasonable, but only the AME can say for sure.

I remember two Spanish sayings:
–Uno es prisionero de lo que dice, y dueño de lo que calla...
–A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan...
An approximate translation could be:
–One is prisoner of what he says, and master of what he doesn't say.
–Few words are enough for he who understands well.


text:
Was the introduction of the A320 flight control system controversial?
There were multiple severe accidents briefly after the entry into service of the A320, many involving to varying degree the augmented control system as a cause. In my eyes the A320 seems to have a very aggressive manipulation of the aircraft controls historically early (1987).
Conversely, the introduction of composites of the Boeing 787 generated a lot of stir and questions about safety, repairs, and lifespan.
Was there ever any questioning of the Airbus augmented control prior to the introduction to service?

any change to established practices triggers comment from purists

Summary
No. The aspects that are talked about now are not the ones talked about then.
My (hazy) recollection is of concerns that the A320 lacked a system of cables and pulleys of the sort used by the Wright brothers. Perhaps pilots of the time had more focused concerns but I don't recall them making the front pages of newspapers.
In the 1980s there was discussion of Airbus flight control systems but the discussion focused on factors that were not involved in the most notable A320 crashes in the late '80s and early 90's.
Several Airbus accidents seem to be at least partly the result of pilots lack of familiarity with sophisticated aircraft systems in general rather than with features that are not found in other aircraft.
The Airbus control system
The main innovations by Airbus were the application to civil airliners of designs that had previously only been used on other types of aircraft.

Fly by wire. No mechanical cables, pulleys and associated friction.
Sidesticks. To provide clearer view of displays and greater pilot comfort.
Flight envelope protection. To prevent excessive inputs stalling or damaging the airframe.

Transfer of control
Airbus spent some time comparing and investigating support for transfer of control between pilots, including in emergency situations. They investigated pilot preferences for several approaches to this. They revisited this aspect over the years and it has become a point of focus since the AF447 report. However it doesn't seem to have been a particular point of controversy in 1987. Perhaps few people in the 1980s fully realized the extent to which pilots can operate independently and antagonistically in severe emergencies and the degree to which teamwork and communication disappears.

There were multiple severe accidents briefly after the entry into service of the A320

You mean these:

26 June 1988, Air France 296. Pilots flew aircraft into trees during unrehearsed demonstration flight at unfamiliar aerodrome after mistaking trees for grass on approach.
14 February 1990 India Air 605. Idle/open descent mode engaged and pilots failed to act as aircraft descended into terrain near airport.
20 January 1992 Air Inter 148. Aircraft flown into terrain after autopilot incorrectly put into vertical speed mode and entered numbers appropriate for flight-angle mode. Air Inter had chosen not to equip aircraft with ground proximity warning system.

The total number of hull-loss accidents for the 320 doesn't seem high compared to other aircraft, but it's hard to compare the numbers if you don't take into account fleet size, cycles flown etc.

the A320 seems to have a very aggressive manipulation of the aircraft controls

I'm not sure what you mean by "aggressive manipulation" but that seems an extreme view. The Airbus systems are a progressive development of existing trends. The accidents were largely the result of pilots setting inappropriate modes in systems like the autopilot. The accidents apparently didn't arise because of, for example, the way the control sticks operate.

Was there ever any questioning of the Airbus augmented control prior to the introduction to service?

By "augmented control" I guess you mean features like the flight envelope protection that prevents pilot inputs from overloading the airframe. That doesn't seem to have been controversial.
The only controversy was over two items that had been used in military aircraft but not in commercial passenger aircraft

fly by wire
sidesticks

These don't seem to have been a large factor in the specific accidents mentioned above.

Further reading:

Indian AIr 605 - A320 Special Final Conditions - FAA
Pilots in the loop?
Electrical Flight Controls
Fly by Wire
AF447

I don't think the sidesticks were controversial as much as the fact that they were not connected to each other, which means one pilot cannot feel what the other pilot is doing. AF447 comes to mind as an accident where this was a factor.

@falstro: That wasn't controversial in 1987 so far as I know.

No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. But I don't see how side sticks on it's own could've been controversial, since they're not all too uncommon in for example small GA aircraft, but there they're mechanically connected.

@falstro: Perhaps sidesticks weren't controversial. They were a notable difference which was probably obvious to the layman looking at cockpit photos in 1987. Maybe someone with better google-fu can dredge up some newspaper reports from 1987 or before.


text:
How much cheaper would flying be if we made it less safe?
Comment: I know this doesn't represent reality, it is a hypothetical scenario.

I have the impression safety measures are non-linear in cost, i.e. that reducing the accident rate by one percent costs more than the preceding percent. We often go to great lengths (and costs) to eliminate very unlikely events from happening.
Let's just assume that we would tolerate the fatality rate of aircraft to be 10 times as high as it currently is. Flying would be even more  attractive and cheaper than going by car (replacing cars on more distances) and would still be statistically safer, so there would still be less fatalities overall.
Is there an estimate on how much the ticket price for end passenger could decrease if we allowed for this to happen? The usage case would be the average commercial aircraft on for instance a 2-3 hour short haul flight.
For instance:

Reduce number and frequency of maintenance checks.
Dispatch aircraft to their destinations under less stringent Minimum Equipment Lists.
Have lower pilot requirements.

Usually when there is a fatality there is also a hull-loss, that cost has to be extracted from the ticket cost as well.

Someone probably needs to write a thesis on this to get a decent answer. It is so very complex, but intruiging. .

Interesting subject.  There are a lot of redundancies on the aircraft, also expenses like materials used in the airframe and engines, etc...

I don't know if you'd be able to assess this properly. Airline accidents that result in fatalities are so rare these days that they can safely be described as freak occurrences. Aviation safety is, by nature, highly redundant and for an accident to take place (let alone a fatal one) a lot of things have to go wrong. Also, the flying public's "tolerance" of a higher fatality rate wouldn't necessarily do a whole lot of good cost-wise, as that many more fatal accidents would result in dramatically higher insurance premiums for the airlines, if they could get insured in the first place.

@habu: insurance isn't the problem. Even with 10x higher accident rates, you'd still be looking at a bunch of unrelated incidents. Insurers have no problems with those types of claims; what they very much dislike are incidents with strong correlations. The major cost of each incident would still be the hull loss, and even at 10x the current losses it still is a manageable amount. After all, even with 10x more hull losses you'd still retire most planes of old age.

@MSalters - insurance premiums would have to go up dramatically in order to allow insurers to be able to pay out the increased number of claims (which includes property, liability, lost income, and a whole slew of other things you'd never even imagine to be a thing) and cover all the related costs. The margins on a typical insurance business line are slim enough that a tenfold increase in losses would be unsustainable without increasing premiums... and that's assuming the insurers wouldn't just quit the business altogether and let the airlines fend for themselves.

@habu: A tenfold increase in insurance premiums would be expected, yes, but that doesn't make planes uninsurable. Car accidents are probably 1000x more expensive than plane crashes in the Western world, by sheer volume. Not a big surprise, as most cars are driven by amateurs. That still doesn't stop car insurance companies.

Though I voted to keep the question open, but I think it might not get a real answer. Most of the safety features in airplanes (and mostly in other industries) are implemented when a disaster happens or is identified to happen. Relating safety with cost may not be realistic either, as air travel has become more affordable over time, but safety features did increase.

@MSalters: While there's no guarantee that insurers would just quit the business, a dramatic increase in premium reqs. would lead to a dramatic shift in marketplace dynamics, with all the consequences such events entail; insurers have ended coverage lines for such concerns in the past and aviation is no stranger to accident liability almost driving sectors to the brink of extinction. As for car accidents, however much more expensive they might be, the market has settled to where the rev. structure is sufficient to cover them, plus the same dynamics would apply in the event of such a shift.

Many (I would venture to say the majority) of passengers do not think about things rationally.  When I get onto an aircraft, I know that the safest part of my journey, by far, in fact vanishingly small risk, is about to begin.  Your average Joe though reads about an aircraft crash with horror and dread without thinking that in the time they took to read the article, many more people died on the roads.  They then climb into their car to drive to work without a moments thought.  Makes no sense, but that's the reality.

Bottom line is the fuel is a major cost and that is not going to change.    You assertion it could get cheaper is car is without basis.  An airplane is not more efficient than a vehicle.   Some costs go up with less safety - insurance and law suits.   I am not so sure the current level of safety is not economical.

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question   will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.

Lets completely remove liability from the picture. The airlines are simply not responsible for anything that happens to the passengers, and as a result they don't care. Seatbelts, oxygen systems, escape slides - who needs them? Flight recorder? In the trash. FAA staff are cut to 20% of current levels and are mainly concerned with keeping things running smoothly (their pay is docked across the board when flights are late) and the NTSB is defunded.
Daily operating costs go down a bit. We've removed a couple of hundred kilograms of safety equipment and that will make a small dent in the fuel bill. But only a small one. The mini-Starbucks installed where the over-wing exits used to be weighs about the same. Costs related to FAA-mandated paperwork are eliminated, but only temporarily.
There's less training for the cabin crew, but we can replace the evacuation training with sales training to bump up profits from regular and duty-free sales. Hooters re-enters the air carrier industry and does quite well, as cabin crew can be transferred directly from the restaurants skipping all that troublesome FAA qualification business.
But we find that maintenance costs don't go down. Costs plummet for the first year, but then go back up as management realizes that an airplane on the ground because it won't start costs a lot more in losses than maintaining it properly to begin with. And the one that crashed on takeoff was a complete loss on the airframe ($100mil and up) along with a dent in sales for the following 6 months.
Flight recorders are reinstalled as they are actually rather useful to predict if something is going to break. It can then be replaced by the night shift. The FAA paperwork we stopped doing is also quite useful for deciding wether or not to overhaul the wheel bearings with winter-weight grease, as we wrote down when it was last done.
The flying public will see maybe 10% reduction in fares. Remember that a very large percentage of ticket costs are taxes. For example, flying out of the UK costs up to £194 just for taxes. Wether the public will accept a large decrease in oversight for a small decrease in fares, or wether the long-term accident rate actually goes up or down will be a very interesting social experiment.

What if instead of the planes, we reduced the safety of terrorist attacks to an "allowable" 200% increase or something equivalent to the increase of flight fatalities caused by this - and what about all the redundant systems in the planes themselves, i.e. plane design costs

This is a very broad question that covers many factors and may be hard to pinpoint just how much the prices could drop but lets look at a few factors.
Insurance
The minimum you would need is collateral against the plane falling out of the sky and hitting something but if you chose to have passengers sign some kind of a waiver you may be able to get away with not insuring the plane/passengers which would drop the costs. I dont have the specific numbers on how much these things cost so I wont comment on just how much it will drop.
Maintenance
Aircraft are overhauled frequently to check for issues and insure that there are no failing components. However some people have long thought that overhauling on time intervals may not really matter. There is an interesting article here about overhauling piston engines and many owners of small planes have made it past TBO issue free. If you extended maintenance intervals you could cut cost but you may also see things break more frequently. In some cases its cheaper to replace it before it breaks than after it breaks and takes a lot of other pieces with it.
Flight Training
If you cut back on crew training you could hire less experienced people you could arguably pay them less. Again you may see more accidents and thus have to end up paying more out in the end.
For what its worth you are better off with a constantly running, well maintained fleet than a broken, rickety fleet. You could always opt for standing room only flights.

I'd say you can't completely strike out the insurance; at least some liability insurance would still be needed as the passengers may sign the waiver but probably not the people on the ground who may be affected by a crash as well. And I presume that such an insurance causes bigger costs than that for the passengers as the potential damage on ground is hard to estimate (thus needs a really high sum insured). Just my two cents :)

One area not mentioned is in aircraft manufacturing. Right now I've heard around 40% or greater of the cost of a new airframe is the liability insurance and all the paperwork and testing for every component that the aircraft uses. Just imagine what the training and general aviation industry would be like if we went back to sane pricing for new Cessna 172s or similar... instead of broaching 360k, for a simple 4 seat trainer, could be around 180k or less.

I think, if your story checks out at all, it must be referring to the R&D costs - perhaps somebody from within the industry could comment.


text:
Did the Swiss Air Force assist Austria in self-defence during the Yugoslav War?
I was told a story a story by a friend that went along the lines of:

On multiple occasions, eastern european military aircraft strayed into Austrian airspace during one of the Yugoslav wars.
Neutral Austria did not have air-to-air combat capability in their J35Ö Draken, so the Swiss Air Force F-5s helped them out instead.
On one occasion, the Swiss air force came in and swiftly destroyed the aircraft in question before returning to base.

Note that I'm not completely sure of the exact sequence of events. I cannot find any reference for this story. Other aircraft downing during the war, especially NATO ones, are well covered.
Did this actually happen?

Updates with a few notes:

This must have occurred before 1995 when the Austrian Air Force outfitted their aircraft with Sidewinders AAM.
There is one case of a MIG-21 Pilot deflecting to Austria. Even this event is very vaguely documented.
Several sources suggest neutral Austria was very shaken up and upset by the foreign fighter jets overflying their country.
Information seems to be generally patchy, as this was before the days of the internet and there appears to have been much confusion and disorder.
As much as Switzerland is perceived as neutral, Austria was also very much so since it was a small country sandwiched between the east and west during the cold war.
Perhaps there is an international law that the Swiss were obligated to help, but kept it quiet out of concern of negative media publicity?

the second point to me sounds extremely unlikely, considering that we are speaking about Swiss air force.

@Federico I was equally surprised, but he seemed very confident in the story (then again he'd had a few beers). However, both countries were neutral and Austria appears to have lacked an air-to-air capability. Apparently from the Hague convention: "Belligerents may not invade neutral territory, and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality".

Might be better off moving this question to History.SE. I'd venture you'd be more likely to run into someone there who would have a good handle (i.e. be somewhat expert) on that time period.

@FreeMan flagged it for migration. If that doesn't work I can repost it myself...

The alleged Eastern European aircraft would have had to have been moving at hot-air-balloon speeds in order for it to be over Austrian airspace long enough for: a call from Austrian air defense to their national leadership, a call to their Swiss counterparts, a decision made to render this sort of lethal assistance, notifying Swiss air defense HQ, scrambling their interceptors, then the transit from Switzerland to Austrian airspace, intercepting the intruder, verifying that they were targeting a military (not civilian) aircraft, and getting final authorization to shoot. Sounds utterly bogus.

@Federico: In fairness to the Swiss Air Force, it should be noted that a) parts of the Geneva airport are actually in France; and b) in that part of Switzerland it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do a 360 turn in a jet while remaining within Swiss air space.

History.se won't like it either as it is an unfounded/unsourced story. Perhaps skeptics?

There was actually a period of several years the Austrian air force used F-5E leased from Switzerland. This was because the Draken was phased out before the Eurofighter Typhoons replacing them were delivered. During those years an intruder would have been shot by Swiss jet, but flown by Austrian pilots operating from an Austrian base.

Ref: http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2008/478austria/austria.htm

@CGCampbell: Skeptics.SE has a requirement that questions must cite a notable claim.  You would need to give a reference to a widely read source claiming that these events took place.  "My friend told me a story" would be immediately closed on Skeptics.SE.

Also note that during the breakup of Yugoslavia there were numerous violations of Austrian airspace, which the Austrians were unable to respond to since their planes did not have any missiles due to an old treaty... So it is possible they might have called on the Swiss, if it was during the office hours...

@MikeFoxtrot I'm not entirely convinced this is a great fit for migration. If you think it belongs on one of our other sites, then feel free to ask it there, and see what their response is. You can also socialize the question it in their site chat rooms first if you want to get opinions about how good of a fit it might be. Up to you.

By the way, swiss doesn't have a 24h/24 7days/week air interception capacity anymore.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it should be in histroy SE

I'm likely reading the same sources than you read. The chance of the event you are searching for ever occurred seems slim. As you wrote, Austria worked hard to maintain its neutrality policy.
From Wikipedia, it seems clear Austria was not using guided missiles before 1993, but indeed other weapons can be used to shoot down an enemy.
The article seems to be exhaustive for significant elements related to flights over the country by foreign aircraft, and still doesn't mention any destruction between 1970 and 1993.
There was a major incident in 1991 with Yugoslav MiG-21, but no mention of a shot down. This incident and the similar ones the same year led to the adoption of guided Sidewinder missiles by the air force two years later.

From 1970, Austria purchased a total of 40 Saab 105 lightweight
  multi-role aircraft with the intention to deploy them in trainer,
  reconnaissance, interception and ground attack roles. As it became
  clear in the 1980s that the sub-sonic aircraft were inadequate for air
  combat and airspace interdiction, Austria purchased 24 reconditioned J
  35 Draken fighter aircraft to supersede the Saab 105 as the Austrian
  Air Force's main interceptor in 1988. The Saab 105 remained in service
  as a trainer/surveillance aircraft.
Shortly after, the Draken saw their first major use in airspace interdiction starting 1991 during the Yugoslav Wars, when Yugoslav
  MiG-21 fighters crossed the Austrian border without permission. In one
  incident on 28 June a MiG-21 penetrated as far as Graz, causing
  widespread demands for action. Following repeated border crossings
  by armed aircraft of the Yugoslav People's Army, changes were
  suggested to the standing orders for aircraft armament.
Since 1955, Austria's armed forces had been forbidden to operate any
  guided missile system, including Air-to-air missiles and
  surface-to-air missiles. In the post-Cold War environment, and with
  gun-armed aircraft a relic of a past age, the Austrian Parliament
  voted to amend this section of its state treaty and in January 1993
  modern AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles were ordered from Sweden to arm its
  fighter aircraft.

On the other assumption that Switzerland provided military assistance, again no mention of such cooperation until recent year, with the EU treaties.
It seems the overflights of Austria by non authorized aircrafts was quite intense --daily-- at the time of the Yugoslavia war.
You may be right when saying that Austria could be reluctant to disclose a shooting. The fact that it would have happened before the widespread use of Internet is not something that could prevent the event to be recounted online today.
Not relevant downing:

Jan. 1992: Two EU helicopters downed by Yugoslav MiG-21, Austria radars detected the downing.

Additional documentation:

The Austrian Air Force - In the Past and Today
Austrian Air Force
Austrian Air Force
A well documented list of interceptions over Austria
Austrian Draken's on high alert


text:
What can I be allowed to do as a engineering/ maintenance intern at a european airline?
I am just about to (hopefully) embark on a short internship at the maintenance department of a medium-sized european airline (i.e. under EASA framework).
While the internship has been pushed towards being practical, one thing that bothers me is that I am absolutely clueless what I could be allowed to do (and I'd like to know so I could negotiate to get the most of the time with the carrier).
For instance:

Would I be allowed to handle anything flight-wise with supervision? Could I be allowed to interact with the aircraft or only watch and observe?
Would I be allowed to even loosen a bolt on a wheel, or do you legally need maintenance certification for that?

It would probably be helpful to specify what sort of engineering (i.e. are you a mechanical engineer, electrical, software, aerospace, etc.?)

@reirab aerospace engineer; pretty inexperienced (BSc student).

Sounds like a great opportunity for you, and sounds like a great question to ask those who are about to hire you for the position. I'd like to help you the most while learning the most for me, what will I be allowed to do and what will I be expected to do? seems like a good interview question.

Maybe @Thunderstrike could follow up with a description of the kinds of task she was allowed to perform?

In europe the MRO are regulated by Part 145, this part precise that you have to be  Certifying staff (owner of part 66) to work on aircraft.
For all other people you can't even loose a bolt except if you are under supervision of qualified Certifying staff.
For engineering work (without work on aircraft) you only need to have a sufficient degree (under company appreciation except for special works like airworthiness where this in precised in concerned regulation (Part M for example)).

So sounds like he can do anything if under supervision of certified mechanic?

And what is meant by "supervised?" Does that mean they have to be standing there watching you turn the bolt?

You can do the work but in theory a certified mechanic must supervise you to ensure that you doing well the job. The main problem is that a certified mechanics must take the responsibility of your work.


text:
Have there been any attempts to standardise pay across different aircraft types?
TL;DR: I'm hypothesising the cockpit experience and pay in small aircraft vs larger aircraft is disproportionate to the risk and responsibility.

I read the argument that pilot pay should be equal across all types, irrespective of it is an A320, A330 or A340 for instance.

The smaller aircraft have greater number of rotations every day, leading to greater workload and hence the pilot responsibility could be argued to be equal to that of a larger aircraft which spends (a lot) more time just cruising.
The bigger aircraft often operate to better, more equipped airports than their smaller counterparts. This again may put more load and responsibility on the pilots.
The bigger aircraft, while in some cases more complicated, may have more automated systems and assistance rather than greater pilot workload, although this of course depends on the aircraft.

I'm wondering if anybody (airline, union etc.) has done this or is trying to do implement it. It would be mighty unpopular among some pilots but I think there is a little bit of sense to the argument.
Why is this a problem?
It also causes the least (or less) experienced pilots to command the small aircraft, rather than perhaps a more sensible mix of age and experience.
Paying additionally by the years of experience makes sense to me, but not this push to constantly advance to get a higher salary.
As it stands, the only way to make more (aside from years of experience) is to upgrade to a larger aircraft type. Aside from requiring retraining (expensive type rating), it puts the pilot into a new aircraft (and possibly airports) he is unfamiliar with.

On the other hand, you probably want your most senior, experienced pilots flying your $300 million, 800,000-1,000,000 lb. aircraft with 300+ people on board vs. your $50-$80 million 100,000 lb. aircraft with 100-150 people on board.

@reirab Indeed, but something like 50% of accidents occur during takeoff and landing. How many rotations do you average in a B737 compared to a B777 during a work day (perhaps 4:1?) and it may have some logic.

I don't understand your question: why would you want the same pay to all pilots? Which is the aim?

@GianniAlessandro Paying additionally by the years of experience makes sense to me, but not this push to constantly upgrade to get a higher salary. It always seems to leave less experienced pilots on the small aircraft, despite it being here perhaps where the oldest pilots could carry over the most knowledge. I'm hypothesising the cockpit experience and pay in small aircraft vs larger aircraft is disproportionate to the risk and responsibility.

A) You may want to include your hypothesis in the question to help clarify it. B) I see where you're coming from - it makes sense. C) In the US, at least, this would likely be very unpopular with the unions. D) Unless someone has intimate knowledge of a union/airline negotiation session (and is willing to share), this has a very unanswerable feel to it.

in small aircraft there must be a first pilot highly skilled and a copilot that very often (like in the famous Germanwing's flight) is less skilled. Then the amount of the salary depends on the market; I still don't get why somebody would want to avoid this kind of market and with which aim.
Which would be your aim?

Can you perhaps also clarify what region we're talking about here? In the U.S., for example, pretty much all pilots for the major airlines are actually quite experienced; some are just extremely experienced. Even the ones flying around MD-80s and 737s usually have thousands of hours, though. The regional jets are, of course, a different story, though even those require a minimum of 1,500 hours (or 1,000 hours + a 4-year degree, etc.)

We do have an economics Stack Exchange, and honestly, this may be better asked there.  What this basically boils down to is "why have the higher ups decided to pay more for a job that requires the same (or possibly less) skill."  It may have to do with prestige pay, or cultural perceptions....  Anyway, I think you'll get a better answer here: http://economics.stackexchange.com

Jumbos and widebodies are harder to fly than amateur pilots often think. The larger and more complex the aircraft, the further ahead in time the pilot has to be thinking in order to get the plane where he wants it in the configuration he wants it. This increases pilot workload even when "just cruising".

There is a natural progression from smaller to larger planes and fewer to more passengers through all levels of pilot training and certification. You don't put a student pilot in an A380 with 500 passengers aboard for their first solo flight. You give them an LSA costing $25-50k and don't allow them to carry any passenger besides their instructor. As the pilot gains skill and experience, they transition to larger and more powerful aircraft and gain more privileges and responsibilities. Parallels abound; knowing how to drive a 19-foot speedboat on a lake is no qualification to be at the helm of the Carnival Magic, or the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. Knowing how to drive a go-cart in a parking lot is no qualification to be behind the wheel of a road train.
Case in point, someone who just got their ATPL/AMEL likely has had zero stick time in an actual airliner; they're simply too big and expensive to run for flight schools to be using them for flight training. What they've probably logged actual flight time in for an AMEL category rating is closer to a Gulfstream or Learjet; a high-performance narrow-body T-tail. That's not really going to cut it for a 737, but that experience transfers pretty seamlessly to a regional narrow-body airliner like a Bombardier or Embraer; slightly bigger and heavier but not totally out of the ballpark in configuration and performance envelope. Establish a good track record in those and you work your way to the 100-seaters like the E195, and from there you can continue to work your way up as your experience and mentality allow you to handle the longer lead times and increased complexities of bigger jets.

Smaller flights tend to bring in less revenue and lower margins, primarily due to increased competition on those routes. Yes, the seats turn over more quickly as the smaller jets make shorter hops, but do the math; DFW-PHX costs about \$320 a seat, you have about 130 seats on a 737 or A320 running that route, and you can run it about 3 flights between those two airports gate-to-gate in 10 hours. Total revenue, somewhere in the ballpark of \$125,000 a day. A ticket from DFW to LHR costs about \$2200, it's run with a 777-300ER which carries about 320 people per flight, and you run that once in the same 10 hours. Total revenue for a full flight, about \$700,000. Even given that the DFW-LHR flight will probably require two crews and the fuel costs per passenger mile will be higher, you're still making more money off the larger plane, provided you can fill it.
Now, this very same cost breakdown doesn't seem to hold at first for a smaller regional jet. Waco to DFW is an hour gate-to-gate and costs ~\$325 a ticket. In the same ten-hour flight time of the DFW-LHR flight, a 50-seat ERJ145 could theoretically bank up to \$162,500, more than the DFW-PHX flight. But, nobody's paying \$325 to fly from Waco to DFW unless they're "stupid rich"; you can drive between those cities in an hour and a half for the cost of about 5 gallons of gas, and people know that. They also know that if they're going to DFW to catch another flight for a week or ten-day trip, the parking fees will eat them alive. A more realistic scenario is ACT-PHX via DFW. That ticket costs \$360. Recall that DFW-PHX by itself was \$320, so your passengers are paying more like \$40/seat for the regional connector, and at that rate 10 trips with a 50-place jet would bring in a scant \$20,000/day, which might barely break even on fuel and fees to operate that route.

Older pilots want more pay. As in many industries, workers expect their experience to count for something on their pay stubs. From simple cost-of-living raises to the money needed to raise a family and eventually retire, airline senior captains often end their careers in the low to mid six figures. They also start lower on the pay scale and so get less of a head start building a home and retirement; regional jet operators start around $22,000 which is just above poverty line (which is part of the complaint; a pilot's starting salary is not a living wage especially considering what it takes just to be able to apply for the job). Given the costs of flight training, and the starting salaries of other skilled trades, learning to fly for a living is not the obvious choice. So the ones that stick with it and work their way to senior captain expect to make up the difference at the end of their careers.

Given all of these points, it makes sense to put junior pilots making less money in smaller airliners, and increase the airframe size and the pay as a pilot advances through their career.

Care to comment, downvoter?


text:
Do airline SOP normally recommend an in-flight engine restart in the case of an unexplained shutdown?
You're flying along at cruise in say a 737 or similar twin-engined yet. Suddenly, one of your engines shut down for no apparent reason. (or no abnormal indications such as low oil or similar)
Do you:

Attempt a restart and either divert or continue?
Divert and leave it off for an emergency landing?

depends on the malfunction

I'd also be curious to see a checklist, but I'd have to assume that if the shut down was entirely unexplained and random you'd have to try and restart it.  The first step in an unexplained situation is to diagnose the problem (if the craft is reasonably stable).  And trying a restart would be a good way to get a diagnoses.  On top of all that, I've read several transcripts where the pilot loses an engine and immediately tries to restart it...  I just don't have a checklist to prove it or I'd make this an answer...

According to item 6-14 in the 737NG Abnormal Procedures Handbook, you're basically supposed to make sure that the engine is shut down completely and then divert to the nearest suitable airport.

From The 737NG Abnormal Procedures Handbook
ENGINE FAILURE/SHUTDOWN
  Condition: Loss of all thrust on an engine accompanied by illumination of the ENG FAIL  alert or abnormal engine
  indications
  Accomplish an engine shutdown only when flight
  conditions permit.

AUTOTHROTTLE (if engaged): DISENGAGE
THRUST LEVER (affected engine): IDLE
ENGINE START LEVER: CUTOFF
APU (if available): START & ON
BUS PACK SWITCH (affected side): OFF
FUEL: BALANCE

If wing anti-ice is required:
  - ISOLATION VALVE SWITCH: AUTO
Plan to land at
  the nearest suitable airport.  ACCOMPLISH ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE
  LANDING CHECKLIST (BELOW)

So, if we're going by the book, I think that diverting would be SOP.
That being said, I've read of several examples (like TACA Flight 110 and Flight BD 092) where the crew tried their best to restart the engine when one or both of the engines flamed out.  So, while the book suggests just shutting the engine down and working on diverting, it seems the common practice is to work on diverting while also trying to start the engine again.

Your question mentions the 737 or similar. If you want answers limited to 2-engine jets, let me know and I'll remove this answer as it is for the 747-100 or -200.
Whether to restart or not depends on the nature of the failure. If there appears to be no problem to do otherwise, a restart would be in order. The checklist for an inflight start from the last airline I flew for (now out of business) is below. The code to the right of each action is who performs it: C - captain, FE - flight engineer, All - all 3 crew members.
Thurst Lever ............................... CLOSE        C

Start Lever ................................ CUTOFF       C

Fuel Pressure .............................. AVAILABLE    FE

Bleed Air Valve ............................ OPEN         FE

Engine Ignition (Sys 1 and Sys 2)

     Above 250 KTS ......................... FLT START    FE

     250 KTS and Below ..................... GND START    FE

Start Lever ................................ RICH/IDLE    C

Engine Instruments ......................... STABILIZED   ALL

Start Lever ................................ IDLE         C

Engine Ignition ............................ AS REQUIRED  FE

Electrical Power ........................... RESTORE      FE

The most likely cause for a Pratt & Whitney JT-9 engine to quit is poor technique on the part of the pilot. If you're at altitude and starting the initial descent, you should put the nose down before bringing the thrust levers back. Also, don't slam them back, take a few seconds to do it, especially if you're above FL370.
It's worth noting that on the 747, the loss of an engine (no restart) enroute is not considered a serious emergency. At the two 747 carriers I flew for, it was the captain's discretion as to whether to divert or to continue on.
Also, it's not always the case of either the engine works at the power of the other engines or it doesn't. There are situations where the engine might be available, but with partial power. As I remember there were at least two such cases, one of which was high oil temperature. Basically the work-around was to run the engine at that power setting that would keep the oil temp below the maximum.

Thanks Terry :) very interesting although I suspect that as perhaps the engine reliability is higher today and with funky stuff like FADEC, the operational philosophy on new aircraft has changed since failures of the types you mention are much less common?

@MikeFoxtrot I suspect you are correct on both counts. I always wonder whether I should contribute from experience that is now so out of date. Sometimes I choose not to, other times to go ahead if I think there is some worth in knowing what it used to be, only if to make the current generation appreciate what they now have operationally. Reminds me somewhat of listening to old pilots when I was a kid in the 1950s. There were those who actually believed in the old cliche that all the fun had gone out of flying when they covered cockpits. BTW, the 2 planes used for Air Force One are 747-200s

This is not that out of date. In 2005, a BA 747-436 from LAX bound to Heathrow suffered engine failure, but rather than turn around and land, the crew decided to proceed. The incident report has more.


text:
What are the implications of a Memorandum of Understanding during an aircraft order process?
The term "Memorandum of Understanding" often pops up when airlines are about to order aircraft.
I'm a little confused as of the importance it carries:

Does it contain any details if the agreement is broken?
Does it state when and where aircraft will be ordered? Or is it just "we will order from you"?
Does it contain any details on any discounts/benefits or similar? I imagine these would in some form be put down on paper before starting negotiations with which company to order from.

AFAICT usually they are options (the term "memorandum of understanding" itself is rather broad)

An MOU isn't specific to aviation, it's a general business/legal term that you find in all industries. It's a way of writing down the main terms of an agreement in advance so that there's no misunderstanding ("did they say 55 or 56 aircraft?"), before the lawyers get to work on the actual final contract. An MOU can also be used for PR purposes if you want to make a big announcement about a 'partnership' without actually committing to anything. They're often confidential and they can contain more or less anything, so it may be difficult to get a clear answer on this.

@Pondlife in that case that's as good answer as i'm going to get :)

@MikeFoxtrot OK, then I've written it up as an answer :-)

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) isn't an aviation term or practice, it's a general business/legal term for a 'pre-contract' of some kind. Before two companies commit to a legally binding and perhaps very expensive contract, they'll often prepare an MOU to make sure that everyone involved has the same understanding of what will be in the contract. That way, there shouldn't be any big surprises or fundamental disagreements when the real contract is prepared.
In the context of aviation, that could be things like how many aircraft will be purchased and when, or what the price is anticipated to be, or anything else that both side consider important. That means that the information in an MOU could be very interesting for other parties ("can you explain why our competitors are paying you $50m less per aircraft than we do?"), so they're usually confidential.
Another common use for MOUs is for PR/Marketing purposes. If two companies are discussing a joint business venture they might come up with an MOU and use it to generate market interest or even raise capital ("I know we're a small company but we have an MOU with Boeing to jointly research alternative fuels").
Given that background, I don't think it's likely that you'll get any specific answers to your questions. An MOU could include all the things you mentioned but only a real contract is enforceable.


text:
Is it worth reporting that I saw a green laser being pointed at the aircraft as a passenger?
I was on approach to Vienna yesterday evening when I observed two 2-second green laser flashes 5 seconds apart from one of the rear passenger windows of the B737 where I was seated being pointed at the aircraft.
I'm wondering if and what I should do since green lasers are dangerous, and I'm convinced the aircraft was being targeted. Should I report this to the relevant authorities? Is it very common or a rare occurrence? The co-pilot didn't seem very bothered about it in any case and he hadn't seen it.

Updates:
20th December 2014: Sent an email to the relevant Austrian authorities. Will see if I get a reply.
22nd December 2014: Sent a report to AustroControl as well.
8th June 2015: No reply to date.

can you describe the circumstances better? was the 737 also on approach? departing? at altitude? what was the laser pointing at?

Are you sure you saw a laser, and not the green flashes of an airport beacon?

@abelenky I was pretty sure that it was when I saw it and even more so after I looked up images online. Checked the approach charts for Vienna, there shouldn't be anything where I was looking.

Cool, keep us updated please!

Just out of curiosity, what harm could green lasers do to aircrafts. Might be some kids on the ground trying to have some fun with their laser pointers.

@Firee Often it is kids, but it doesn't make it any better. Wikipedia has an article dedicated on it and the FBI offers $10,000 for helping to arrest somebody who does it.

@Firee The harm is blinding the pilots while they're trying to fly a final approach. Needless to say, that's a bad thing.

In that case I would definitely report the incidence!  It doesn't have to be done by police, but you can give the airport authority a call, that way you don't have to make too much of a big deal about it, and still informed the ones that need to know. They can then advise pilots and keep their eyes open for it. If there is a attack on the airplanes, it is important that it is being reported before it is too late. If not, then you didn't make a big deal out of it and are not in trouble for wasting time and money.
So, a call where you could explain what you have seen and give a opinion is your best bet, if they tell you off then hey, you've tried it!

Well, while you are still on the aircraft, you can't call. But you can tell the cabin crew and let them decide whether they want to rely it further.

The FAA encourages reports of laser incidents. They focus on ground observers and pilots, but I think a passenger report would be useful too.
The Austro Control site does offer reporting forms for various safety purposes, including a "voluntary/simplified" report, which could be a place to start.
As with most reports, nothing will probably happen, but it can help in identifying repeat offenders and keeping statistics. Laser incidents are being taken more and more seriously. The FAA asks pilots to immediately report any incidents to ATC, and when applicable ATC is required to provide a caution every five minutes for 20 minutes and include a warning in ATIS for at least 1 hour. Of course, reports immediately after an incident with accurate position information will be the most useful.

Thanks for the reporting form which I now sent. I only found the contact form which I didn't think would do anything and sent something to some government agency instead. This now seems more of the official channel to go. I thought getting repeat offenders or statistics from it would be most beneficial.

I would not report it.  Most likely the pilots saw it too, and it is their responsibility to report this.
What is necessary is to get the report made in close to real time so the authorities can pinpoint the location.  Now, hours even days in arrears, your report would not be useful.

I told one of the pilots, they had not seen it and didn't seem bothered. I thought that pilots probably don't have time to pay attention to where the pointing is coming from, which I was able to make out. I figured they might do it again from the same location. But of course an immediate report is most useful...

Great!  That in my mind ends your responsibility.


text:
What difference does the choice of paved runway surface make to aircraft?

What difference to the pilot does it make it say a runway is Concrete or Asphalt?
Does it require different information in the flight management system or other calculations?

more important than the surface would be the foundation, you will want to avoid potholes

Are you only concerned about Concrete and Asphalt surfaces, or are you also interested in more esoteric surfaces (gravel, grass, PSP, etc.)

Both are paved surfaces, so it doesn't make any difference when calculating takeoff and landing distances (ASDR, TORR, TODR, LDR). If your aircrafts performance computer offers the possibility to calculate the takeoff and landing performance, speeds and distances it won't make any difference between concrete and asphalt runways.
Also from the pilots perspective, not thinking about the calculations, it is not a real difference. Maybe asphalt runways are a little more prone to have standing water on it if they are not groved then concrete runways and also tend more to get cracks.
Airports will have their reasons why they decide for one of these types of runway. The condition of the surface the runway is build on (slopes, strength, water) as well as the costs will obviously be factors which needs to be considered.

Concrete is better for certain large airports. Asphalt never completely hardens, and will always behave like an extremely viscous liquid. So when you heat it up (on a hot summer's day), it becomes less viscous. When you put a heavy weight on it (like an airliner), it will tend to flow away from and surround that airliner. Planes pull up to a gate, sit for an hour or so, and suddenly their wheels have sank into the ramp six inches and they can't move. Same with runways, the constant shock of landing aircraft cause the asphalt to buckle and warp eventually.
Concrete has issues in the cold, however, especially if it is not laid well. It can buckle and crumble when it expands and contracts. However, it only gets stronger as it ages and it can easily be made to withstand the hardest of landing impacts.
The type of material does not make any noticeable difference to takeoff/landing performance.

interesting to see it from a engineering standpoint as well as the flying one. was included my original question but that was too broad so i removed it... would probably deserve it's own Q&A :)

I seem to recall hearing about an airliner that got stuck in softened asphalt (taxiway?) last summer during some extreme temperatures.

Not sure if this is the one you are referring to.